The Climate Wars Are Heating Up
So, apparently, the climate wars aren’t over quite yet. Thank goodness for that! That’s not us rekindling the battle, by the way, it’s the Greens’ ‘Treasury spokesman’ federal Senator Nick McKim who has discovered a new term of abuse: ‘ecocidal’ to describe opponents of net zero.
Definitely, a word for Kel Richards to strip bare, but obviously a contrived new term designed to imply somebody is guilty of genocide if they don’t subscribe to the climate cult’s nihilistic net-zero agenda. [emphasis, links added]
This is good news.
As far as we are concerned, the climate wars are desperately needed: an ongoing battle for common sense, reason, proportionality, and above all science – real science, as opposed to ‘The Science’, aka left-wing political propaganda of the sort that caused so much unnecessary suffering (and death) during Covid.
Put simply, it has never been shown that human beings have any ability whatsoever to influence let alone to ameliorate or reverse global climate trends and patterns.
The precautionary principle suggests that if the theory of anthropogenic global warming is valid, then heavily industrialized nations should do what they can to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, but – and this is critical – to do so in a way that does not cause equal or more harm in other areas.
This is where ongoing, proper cost-benefit analyses are required to influence genuine political debate and corporate decision-making, but they are entirely absent.
For example, what is the cost to the working poor if energy prices rise versus what is the actual benefit to the planet for that sacrifice?
What is the cost to Third-World countries when they don’t have access to cheap electricity versus what is the benefit to them of a potential and purely academic ‘modeled’ reduction in global temperatures?
Or on an even more immediate topic: what is the genuine cost in terms of carbon emissions output involved in the manufacturing of an entire global fleet of electric vehicles, batteries, and the infrastructure needed to power them versus the cost of simply carrying on with business as usual?
What is the cost to entire societies of reducing the nitrogen in their soil versus the measurable benefit to the planet? What is the military and security cost of achieving net zero versus the hypothetical environmental benefit?
That’s if the AGW theory is valid.
This week, in Kiwi Life, Amy Brooke analyzes the claims of climate catastrophists and concludes: just follow the money. David van Gend meanwhile applies not only his clinical but his satirical skills to offer a diagnosis of Mother Earth herself.
Despite the relentless propagandizing across virtually all media and from the major political parties here in Australia, the simple fact remains: none of the doomsday predictions going back some three or four decades have come true. Not one.
Indeed, weather patterns have often done the complete opposite of what was so stubbornly predicted. Much like the now-exposed fraudulent modeling on Covid, climate modeling is self-evidently deeply flawed as a ‘science’.
A gypsy queen with a crystal ball in a Louisiana fairground probably has a better track record at peering into the future than Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Greta Thunberg, King Charles, Klaus Schwab, and all the rest of them put together.
Read rest at Spectator AU
Trackback from your site.